|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2009 22:57:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 6, 2009 21:02:35 GMT
More and more horrors to contemplate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 6:03:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Nov 5, 2009 13:11:34 GMT
Where else would you "bet" that it won't rain? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 15:52:02 GMT
Awful.... the diseases down there to catch.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 5, 2009 16:06:38 GMT
It is a great irony that the more advanced a place is in terms of living conditions, the more difficult it is to have a place to live if you fall into economic disaster.
For one thing, those of us from first world backgrounds only know how to exist with modern conveniences, although people with camping experience probably have an edge. Other stumbling blocks to bare existence are laws meant to protect everyone. Zoning would prevent me from putting up a shack on the lot I own in the subdivision. And were I to build a conventional house, I couldn't live in it until it met all codes. As my neighbor, you'd appreciate my not having an outhouse in the back yard to possibly contaminate your water supply.
As I watched the miseries heaped on people forced out of New Orleans by Katrina, it occurred to me that in second and third world countries there are more options when the government fails to help. If you can't return to your house, you can squat somewhere in a dwelling made from found materials, rather than lose all your savings paying for a motel.
Obviously we are talking about two extremes of needs not being met by governments accidentally or deliberately blind to certain issues. The question is, how is that to be resolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Nov 8, 2009 20:53:08 GMT
When you mandate standards that significant numbers of people cannot afford to meet, you create a criminalized and unaccountable underclass, even if that isn't your intent when drawing up those standards.
|
|
